The Big Picture: In Defense of Nostalgia

AkaDad

New member
Jun 4, 2011
398
0
0
Blind Sight said:
AkaDad said:
Blind Sight said:
Imperator-Zor said:
I must agree with Bob, awesome video.

Aurini said:
The devil was the first whig, and he's been winning for 500 years
Yes, free us from "Serfdom" by bringing back actual Serfdom, nobility, rigidly defined class structres, church and state linked together, supression of any idea that might come up to challenge the status quo regardless of its legitimacy and all that. Oh the Irony.

Besides, your ideology came about in the early 1800s cenutry and had its massive failures. Mass famines in India, widespread poverty and horrible instability. The US had numerous finacial crashes due to lack of regulation over the course of the 19th century. The Great Depression was just the worst because of the rise of the cash economy (A larger precentage of people were using money more frequently, farmers before the Industrial Revolution usually had little money but could generally feed themselves and often could barter for things they could not make at home, once cities emerge people need to buy food and once industrial manufacturing begins stores no longer accept jars of jam as payment). Now, Banks and Finance have been deregulatd and the result, recession. Canada and the rest of the world's banks did not try to pull such scams because they were better monitored and kept on a shorter leash.

Zor
You do realize that one of the primary factors for the 2007 financial crash was the housing bubble burst? That was directly the result of government intervention (mostly thanks to Clinton's housing plans in the 90s) which created artificial demand. Government intervention into the economy, I will remind you, is traditionally a belief held by the centre or left. Also, the Great Depression was actually accelerated by government programs that attempted to halt it. Go look at unemployment rates in the 30s and you'll notice massive spikes whenever FDR created more New Deal social programs. In contrast, the depression that occurred in the 20s resulted in no excess government spending, in fact, the American government actually decreased spending, and the economy recovered within a year. I'm not even a conservative, I'm just pointing out how completely biased and selective your use of history is.
I wasn't going to comment, but when I read this I had to. You are seriously misinformed. In the late 90's, Republicans repealed the Glass-Steagall act, which deregulated the financial industry. That is what caused the recession, not government intervention.

The repeal of provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. This repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007-2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms.

Those unemployment spikes under FDR happened when government cut back on spending, the opposite of what you're claiming. I don't know where you get your information from, but you should stop getting it from that source.
My sources are Joseph Salerno, an expert in monetary theory and banking, and Dr. Thomas Woods, historian and Austrian economist. Woods is widely accepted as an expert in both fields, has had several books make the New York Times bestseller list, and actively welcomes debate with his points (if you're that interested you can check out his youtube channel TomWoodsTV or his forum on the Von Muses Institute website). Most of these are examples from his book Rollback, where he deals with historical myths such as the decrease in spending= unemployment spike you mentioned. However, my housing points mainly come from Salerno, as Woods argues that the bigger problem in the American economy is the Federal Reserve.


Boosting aggregate demand within the housing sector created opportunities for mal-investment. Keynesian policies were one of the main driving forces behind the recession. There's a reason that Austrian economists in the late 90s and early 2000s were predicting a financial crash before anyone else.

If I may ask, what are your sources?

EDIT: If you have JSTOR, I'll gladly link you to the articles written by Salerno and Woods I got my points from.

ecoho said:
why not? god forbid people would actually have to work for the office not have it work for them. now i have no clue how to answer your last question but let me give it a go. get rid of politicians i dont know about you but id rather not have people there who want to be there id rather have the guy who gets the job done and leaves.
Well my whole reason for asking that question is that it's all well and good to talk about idealized forms of responsible government, it is another thing entirely to have an actual solution to the problem. It's a common fallacy I find, people want to argue for new ways of governing but can't find a way to create the necessary infrastructure for it to exist.
I watched that video of Joseph Salerno and had to stop when he calls the Community Reinvestment Act "affirmitve action." This guy doesn't even understand what that act did.

Banks were charging qualified minorities higher rates than white people and the CRA said you can't do that anymore. You had to charge the same rates to everyone. That's not affirmative action. I can't take this guy seriously and neither should you.

I get my info from many sources. Paul Krugman is an economist you should read. He gets it right more than most economists.
 

pirateninj4

New member
Apr 6, 2009
525
0
0
Excellent show Bob, well done. Relevant and minus any kind of hate or divisiveness that usually accompanies political segues.

Thanks.
 

Emergent System

New member
Feb 27, 2010
152
0
0
Ah yes, the good old "bigger problems exist, so stop complaining" argument. If this was a valid one, we could never complain about anything in the west since anything you could complain about is worse somewhere else.
 

Blind Sight

New member
May 16, 2010
1,658
0
0
AkaDad said:
I watched that video of Joseph Salerno and had to stop when he calls the Community Reinvestment Act "affirmitve action>." This guy doesn't even understand what that act did.

Banks were charging qualified minorities higher rates than white people and the CRA said you can't do that anymore. You had to charge the same rates to everyone. That's not affirmative action. I can't take this guy seriously and neither should you.

I get my info from many sources. Paul Krugman is an economist you should read. He gets it right more than most economists.
That's not Joseph Salerno, that's Tom Woods. And as he said several seconds after, he calls it affirmative action specifically because that's what it was called at the time.

And I think we're at an impasse here since I can't take Krugman seriously because of his support of the Broken Window Fallacy.
 

AkaDad

New member
Jun 4, 2011
398
0
0
Blind Sight said:
AkaDad said:
I watched that video of Joseph Salerno and had to stop when he calls the Community Reinvestment Act "affirmitve action>." This guy doesn't even understand what that act did.

Banks were charging qualified minorities higher rates than white people and the CRA said you can't do that anymore. You had to charge the same rates to everyone. That's not affirmative action. I can't take this guy seriously and neither should you.

I get my info from many sources. Paul Krugman is an economist you should read. He gets it right more than most economists.
That's not Joseph Salerno, that's Tom Woods. And as he said several seconds after, he calls it affirmative action specifically because that's what it was called at the time.

And I think we're at an impasse here since I can't take Krugman seriously because of his support of the Broken Window Fallacy.
Just because critics of the act called it affirmative action doesn't make it true. It would be like giving gay people the same rights as straight people and calling it affirmative action.
 

mikespoff

New member
Oct 29, 2009
758
0
0
Varya said:
To be opposed to Gay Marriage is, when you get down to it, someone giving a fuck where there should be no fucks given.
...so marriage is a completely irrelevant social institution? In that case, why does it matter whether gays can get married? And if that's not the case, then surely (as you put it), fucks should be given?

OT, Nostalgia is not always a bad thing, and change for the sake of it is not always a good thing. Sometimes, traditions and institutions exist because they acknowledge that the best way of doing things is the way that we've been doing them for the past few thousand years...
 

Blind Sight

New member
May 16, 2010
1,658
0
0
AkaDad said:
Blind Sight said:
AkaDad said:
I watched that video of Joseph Salerno and had to stop when he calls the Community Reinvestment Act "affirmitve action>." This guy doesn't even understand what that act did.

Banks were charging qualified minorities higher rates than white people and the CRA said you can't do that anymore. You had to charge the same rates to everyone. That's not affirmative action. I can't take this guy seriously and neither should you.

I get my info from many sources. Paul Krugman is an economist you should read. He gets it right more than most economists.
That's not Joseph Salerno, that's Tom Woods. And as he said several seconds after, he calls it affirmative action specifically because that's what it was called at the time.

And I think we're at an impasse here since I can't take Krugman seriously because of his support of the Broken Window Fallacy.
Just because critics of the act called it affirmative action doesn't make it true. It would be like giving gay people the same rights as straight people and calling it affirmative action.
It wasn't critics, it was specifically the people in support of the act.

Quote: "Banks began to engage in, in effect, affirmative action in lending. And that's not a controversial statement, because people who supported the Community Reinvestment Act called it that."

Groups like ACORN still consider it to be a form of affirmative action.
 

mikespoff

New member
Oct 29, 2009
758
0
0
Wuggy said:
I usually find you quite insightful, Bob, but this I didn't really agree with. See, you can put in the "perspective" argument in use in any given situation.

"I think X movie is one of the worst things I've seen!"
"Oh yeah! Well I guess you haven't seen WORLD HUNGER!"

"I don't like this game."
"Well, you should be glad that you can even play games, because a lot of people don't! So stop complaining!"

Yeah, this is why we limit dialogue under an umbrella of a certain topic(s).

Also, I don't think that nostalgia (in terms of movies, games, TV shows) is the most harmful thing in the world (because that'd be global warming or something! Perspective!). I don't like it because people who are (highly) nostalgic can get really obnoxious about it. Claiming that Super Mario Brothers is the greatest game of all time just goes to show how little rationale you put behind that thought. No, games have developed greatly beyond that. You had fun playing it as a kid, so you let your fond memories dictate your opinions.
Excellent points and excellent analogies. A tip of the virtual hat to you.

And yes, it was a bit of a logical leap from games and movies to politics via the dubious etymological connection of "nostalgia"...
 

DRD 1812

New member
Mar 1, 2010
27
0
0
Well this feels less necessary given the two posts above me, oh well.

So Bob made a passive-agressive defense for being a Nintendo fanboy, something he clearly has a complex about given how often he brings it up in his videos, and then shouted, "HEY LOOK OVER THERE! AMIRITE?" And most of you fell for it?

Let me try the same method:

You know, I don't get the how people are saying modern military shooters and movies like Transformers fetishize the military. I mean, I can see what they're talking about in an abstract way, but then is that any stranger than the dozens of Japanese games and cartoons released every year that continually fetishize high-school students? And don't get me started about "romance games."

I think the REAL problem is how society looks at wealth and power to a fetishitic degree, how entertainment and corporate figure/leaders greedily cling to their millions while every day more people go without work. Do we really need to look at first-person shooters so closely when CHILDREN are STARVING every day?

Perspective people.
 

AkaDad

New member
Jun 4, 2011
398
0
0
Blind Sight said:
AkaDad said:
Blind Sight said:
AkaDad said:
I watched that video of Joseph Salerno and had to stop when he calls the Community Reinvestment Act "affirmitve action>." This guy doesn't even understand what that act did.

Banks were charging qualified minorities higher rates than white people and the CRA said you can't do that anymore. You had to charge the same rates to everyone. That's not affirmative action. I can't take this guy seriously and neither should you.

I get my info from many sources. Paul Krugman is an economist you should read. He gets it right more than most economists.
That's not Joseph Salerno, that's Tom Woods. And as he said several seconds after, he calls it affirmative action specifically because that's what it was called at the time.

And I think we're at an impasse here since I can't take Krugman seriously because of his support of the Broken Window Fallacy.
Just because critics of the act called it affirmative action doesn't make it true. It would be like giving gay people the same rights as straight people and calling it affirmative action.
It wasn't critics, it was specifically the people in support of the act.

Quote: "Banks began to engage in, in effect, affirmative action in lending. And that's not a controversial statement, because people who supported the Community Reinvestment Act called it that."

Groups like ACORN still consider it to be a form of affirmative action.
If ACORN said it, they're wrong too.

In that video he blames the CRA, Freddy and Fanny Mac for the meltdown, which is flat out wrong. Private sector loans were responsible for the housing problems not Freddy and Fanny.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
 

Blind Sight

New member
May 16, 2010
1,658
0
0
AkaDad said:
Blind Sight said:
AkaDad said:
Blind Sight said:
AkaDad said:
I watched that video of Joseph Salerno and had to stop when he calls the Community Reinvestment Act "affirmitve action>." This guy doesn't even understand what that act did.

Banks were charging qualified minorities higher rates than white people and the CRA said you can't do that anymore. You had to charge the same rates to everyone. That's not affirmative action. I can't take this guy seriously and neither should you.

I get my info from many sources. Paul Krugman is an economist you should read. He gets it right more than most economists.
That's not Joseph Salerno, that's Tom Woods. And as he said several seconds after, he calls it affirmative action specifically because that's what it was called at the time.

And I think we're at an impasse here since I can't take Krugman seriously because of his support of the Broken Window Fallacy.
Just because critics of the act called it affirmative action doesn't make it true. It would be like giving gay people the same rights as straight people and calling it affirmative action.
It wasn't critics, it was specifically the people in support of the act.

Quote: "Banks began to engage in, in effect, affirmative action in lending. And that's not a controversial statement, because people who supported the Community Reinvestment Act called it that."

Groups like ACORN still consider it to be a form of affirmative action.
If ACORN said it, they're wrong too.

In that video he blames the CRA, Freddy and Fanny Mac for the meltdown, which is flat out wrong. Private sector loans were responsible for the housing problems not Freddy and Fanny.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
Actually, he states that he considers those to be red herrings to the actual problem of the Federal Reserve and fiat currencies. Did you actually watch anything beyond the first four minutes?

Funny enough, the comments in your article offer up a counterargument instantly:
http://www.goingeasy.com/subtitle_h.htm

Straight from the Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

EDIT: Should mention that it's getting late so I'm going to have to retreat to my bed. But this has been a worthwhile debate.
 

brainiac2

New member
Jun 15, 2008
116
0
0
Okay, I've got a big post covering a lot of issues:

POLITICAL:
I am of the belief that any group who stands up for their rights deserves any rights they ask for. Gay people go out and petition for their rights, so I think they deserve them. Not allowing them to marry puts them on a lower pedestal than straight couples and makes it harder for them to live in society. Really, does it affect you personally if gay people are allowed to get married? Does it infringe on your rights to be married? I see know reason not to give them complete equal rights.

As for the whole economic debate, I will come out and say that I know nothing. I'm not sure which side is right and I don't know the history. I do think, however, that we shouldn't get angry at the government for not fixing all of our problems instantly. It's a long process and clearly everyone has different ideas about how to go about it, so let's give them a little more credit.

CULTURAL:
There is a specific type of nostalgia that I hate. It's the idea that everything nowadays is inferior to what was made in the past. I don't mind the positive loving of old things, I only mind when it's used to criticize the new stuff.

For example, people who say that all movies that come out today are crap and that they can never live up to the classics. All of the movies that come out today are not crap, MOST of them are crap. And that's how it's always been. For every good movie each year, there's dozens of terrible movies, and it's always been that way. The thing is, the terrible movies are forgotten, so all people remember are the good movies that came out when they were kids. If anything, it's easier to make good movies these days with the advancements in technology, better budgets, and spread of equipment to nearly everyone,

There's also the adverse to change within a franchise. In no franchise is this more clear than in Pokemon. Half of the fanbase declares that pokemon was only good back in Red and Blue and that all of the new games are terrible. These people are blinded by nostalgia. Red and Blue were terribly designed games, the fighting mechanics weren't very good, and you couldn't do all that much. Every successive generation has made the games better, not worse. The fighting mechanics weren't really properly developed until Gen 4. People say the old pokemon were the best ones, but honestly I don't really like many of their designs. Gen 3 has most of my favorite pokemon, though Gen 5 is a close second. The problem is, no one will listen to all the things that have improved. They just want their old pokemon, regardless of the actual quality of it, because it reminds them of their childhood.

Frankly, I don't get why people are so adverse to franchises continuing to make games. People complain how Mario and Pokemon are exactly the same as the old games, not changing anything, when in fact each new game has new elements added and improvements to gameplay. The games are supposed to be similar, because it's that gameplay that made them popular in the first place. When people point out the side games that these franchises make, they say that those games don't count and that the main games are too much of the same. So, basically, you want these successful franchises to just stop? You want these companies to stop making fun, enjoyable games just because they've made similar games in the past? Frankly, as long as the new Mario or Pokemon of Call of Duty is fun, I'm happy they made it. Hell, if people are willing to buy the new sports games for the roster and stat changes, I say more power to them, and that EA is making a good business decision.

Also, one last question for the thread: has there EVER been a good live action movie based on an animated TV show? Like, a fresh on rotten tomatoes?
 

bz316

New member
Feb 10, 2010
400
0
0
NameIsRobertPaulson said:
Can't help but notice the two areas he calls a "problem" are both Republican ideas. Someone's showing their democrat side. Wonder how long till Xan and that one nut who complains about how left wing the Escapist and the internet are get here. I smell poorly enforced boycott!

But in seriousness, perspective would be good, but nobody is ever capable of true perspective. Our own experiences shape our perception of the world.
They're not necessarily "Republican" ideas or issues. Large numbers of registered Republicans are libertarians who believe marriage rights should be expanded or changed, and there are many people on both the right, the left and in-between who want to change the constitution for various reasons. The nostalgia-lunatics are often associated with the republican party, but that doesn't necessarily mean Bob is talking about the whole political group, just one aspect of politics which by coincidence gets associated with said political group who's members may or may not actually agree.
 

AkaDad

New member
Jun 4, 2011
398
0
0
Blind Sight said:
AkaDad said:
Blind Sight said:
AkaDad said:
Blind Sight said:
AkaDad said:
I watched that video of Joseph Salerno and had to stop when he calls the Community Reinvestment Act "affirmitve action>." This guy doesn't even understand what that act did.

Banks were charging qualified minorities higher rates than white people and the CRA said you can't do that anymore. You had to charge the same rates to everyone. That's not affirmative action. I can't take this guy seriously and neither should you.

I get my info from many sources. Paul Krugman is an economist you should read. He gets it right more than most economists.
That's not Joseph Salerno, that's Tom Woods. And as he said several seconds after, he calls it affirmative action specifically because that's what it was called at the time.

And I think we're at an impasse here since I can't take Krugman seriously because of his support of the Broken Window Fallacy.
Just because critics of the act called it affirmative action doesn't make it true. It would be like giving gay people the same rights as straight people and calling it affirmative action.
It wasn't critics, it was specifically the people in support of the act.

Quote: "Banks began to engage in, in effect, affirmative action in lending. And that's not a controversial statement, because people who supported the Community Reinvestment Act called it that."

Groups like ACORN still consider it to be a form of affirmative action.
If ACORN said it, they're wrong too.

In that video he blames the CRA, Freddy and Fanny Mac for the meltdown, which is flat out wrong. Private sector loans were responsible for the housing problems not Freddy and Fanny.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
Actually, he states that he considers those to be red herrings to the actual problem of the Federal Reserve and fiat currencies. Did you actually watch anything beyond the first four minutes?

Funny enough, the comments in your article offer up a counterargument instantly:
http://www.goingeasy.com/subtitle_h.htm

Straight from the Consumer Protection Act of 2010.
That link doesn't say that Fanny and Freddy were responsible for the meltdown.

I see that guy believes in laissez-faire economics. I can't take anyone seriously who believes that no regulations are good for the economy.
 

Bradax24

New member
Dec 26, 2010
6
0
0
I was pleasantly surprised.

The title certainly didn't foreshadow this. After all, nostalgia has been a relatively leading drive in Moviebob's other show, the Game Overthinker. And that can be pretty good ("Can It Happen to Us") or really bad ("Worst Person," which snapped my fandom for a good while.)

He admits that nostalgia can hold certain properties back, but he pretty much admits that it shouldn't be a big concern in games because it's the least of the world's problems. While true, it does simplify nostalgia in games and it's certainly very black and white, pretty much Bob's style throughout most of his show.

For example, in "Worst Person" he said that he doesn't like FPS games and provides reasons why. However, in all honesty, it feels like he's trying to justify his disposition without the idea that genres succumb to only one trait and any other similarities are either bound by culture or success in the past (regenerating health, HD graphics, etc). Not all games in one genre run the same way.

At least he admits that nostalgia can be harmful, and that the possibility of harm at every turn is a bit of an exaggeration.
 

Riobux

New member
Apr 15, 2009
1,955
0
0
Insightful and I'll admit I never noticed it before. Sure I've been part of the crowd who have found it at least somewhat negative to reuse and rebrand the same characters over and over again for easy money(I'm looking at you Nintendo and Sega). However, I've never quite twigged on that a surprising amount of politics is based upon nostalgia, a bizarre misinterpreted perception of "ye good olde days". Which, in America, seems to exist around the 1950s. Fortunately, we don't have the problem of nostalgia in the UK (especially since if you informed people what happened last time England has an absolute free-market, which is pre-WW2, I doubt they'd sympathise).

Instead, we're looking at the future and "modernisation" (yes, they throw that word around as though it has an obvious set of guidelines and totally isn't nothing more than a buzz word). Just we're not sure what kind of "modernisation" we want. Up until the late 70s, we wanted the socialist kind. Then "the iron lady" Margaret Thatcher (which some people would consider to be the worst post-WW2 prime-minister and an all out horrible person, I personally have no reason to doubt it), influenced by American politics, decided to turn the UK into more of a market state. Now, the word "socialism" likely conjures up images of a particular country. It is absolutely no coincidence that there was a particular war happening around that period. The latter influenced the former, just helped the UK was in a silly amount of debt. Currently, we've decided on a "third wave" movement, coined by Lord Anthony Giddens, which involves socialism and marketisation. Now, the extent of socialism and marketisation are always up for debate with the Labour party and Conservative party arguing respective points, although I personally am in doubt they're not just fighting for the same thing: More marketisation. Wonder if it's a coincidence who won that particular war mentioned earlier and now are in a "special relationship" (actual term used, although I'd personally say "special" like you would refer to a child who requires "special" needs) with said country...

Hhhmm, seem to of gotten off topic there. Anyway, it was good watching the show and it's given a lot of food for thought.
 

Harry Mason

New member
Mar 7, 2011
617
0
0
Spot on, Captain Bob! Your shows are always highlights of my week.
I love his unabashed Mario-love. I was a Crash Bandicoot and Spyro kid (not owning a game system until the PS1 era), but old-school Nintendo fanboyism always warms my withered black heart for some reason...

Also, my roommate appreciates your gay-marriage plug, as he'd like to marry his prince-charming someday. We really need more of that attitude in "geek-culture."
 

estoria-etnia

New member
Aug 22, 2009
131
0
0
mikespoff said:
Varya said:
To be opposed to Gay Marriage is, when you get down to it, someone giving a fuck where there should be no fucks given.
...so marriage is a completely irrelevant social institution? In that case, why does it matter whether gays can get married? And if that's not the case, then surely (as you put it), fucks should be given?

OT, Nostalgia is not always a bad thing, and change for the sake of it is not always a good thing. Sometimes, traditions and institutions exist because they acknowledge that the best way of doing things is the way that we've been doing them for the past few thousand years...
Marriage is a social institution, yes. And it's a relevant one. The reason it matters about gays marrying is the fact that, at this moment in the majority of the US, they can't. That matters because they are being denied their rights as human beings to marry. The arguments against it are, largely, based on tradition and even religious values when government and legislation is supposed to be secular; there is supposed to be a separation of church and state that people don't understand.

Yes, some traditions and institutions still exist because they're the best, but they've also evolved over time. Marriage as we view it is quite different to how it used to be ? and even that depends on culture and history and location. Seriously, marriage customs all over the world are very different from each other and they've been very different over the course of history. But here's the fact: They've also changed. People are not necessarily getting married the same way that they did a hundred years ago.

If you want to go back a 'few thousand years' (your own words), you would find a vastly different world with vastly different beliefs, ideas, and traditions that no longer exist now. Why? Because they became irrelevant over time, because society changed and they became outdated. There are numerous reasons why we do things differently today from what, say, the ancient Greeks did or the ancient Egyptians. It's because society changes over time.